Or they’re just not interested in wading through far-right extremists for 3 shitty memes.
After all, if your theory about “open spaces turn into Nazis and pedos because most people are secretly Nazis and pedos” were actually true, those sites would be the biggest sites in the world, not tiny little bubbles that last 6 months.
If you want to see far-right content and spam, join a far-right server or run your own, rather than trying to shame server owners into doing what you want.
Admins are entitled to decide what they platform and what they don’t. On top of that, the user experience of “just block 100 servers of Nazis and incels to get to the content you want to see” is complete dogshit.
This “it should all be user level” is just apologist bullshit.
Same story for me. Whoever wrote it got a few details wrong but the idea of editing the page myself feels incredibly awkward.
On reddit, it was obvious that people would read the headline then check out the top comment to find out what their opinion of the headline should be.
He just wouldn’t follow through the moment someone told him his idea was bad for rich people.
It also makes it nearly impossible for independent researchers to uncover bot networks and AstroTurfing, just in time for fully automated AI propaganda.
It wasn’t for nothing, it was to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to defense companies and their shareholders.
They’re not really “their own people”. When you have a pool of hundreds of millions of people to pick from, it’s easy enough to find someone who is willing to sell out their race, gender or sexuality for 15 minutes of fame, only to be second against the wall when the fascists they’ve enabled take power.
Google figured out that number internally before development on it even started. Whatever the figure is, they’ve deemed it a profitable trade.
Has she actually made any “tough decisions” that didn’t involve killing animals? All she’s showing me is that she thinks that killing things is a solution and one she might reach for with an uncomfortable eagerness.
It’s a cult thing. You believe ridiculous shit that wouldn’t fool a child as a way of proving your faith. The more ridiculous, the more faithful you are.
Welcome to the wonderful world of neoliberalism. The article was written to generate ad impressions, as the majority of articles now are. Being fair and honest in them simply isn’t as profitable, so its an afterthought. You can’t even pay for journalists with spines because there will always be a greasy manager at the top, saying “but what if we charged a subscription and stuffed clickbait full of ads?”.
A couple of years more of AI development and media – both social and traditional – will be a write off.
Like I said, take it up with them. I’ve got no interest in getting to know every single gun owner and every one of their tedious, bullshit opinions and I’m definitely not going to be shamed into giving them a free pass until I’ve kissed every one of them on the mouth.
Edit: I just noticed that the end of your comment genuinely asserts that “not being nice enough to gun owners caused Ulvade” and I think it’s important to tell you to go fuck yourself and don’t stop until you bleed out.
The Ulvade shooter was a legal gun owner, in a state the pro-gun community claims a utopia. He had a history of death and rape threats but the pro-gun community staunchly opposed any kind of red flag laws. After the shooting, the pro-gun community was adamant that no laws should be changed, essentially saying “we were fine with this gun sale and we’ll be fine with the next”.
All those words claiming “I’m not like other girls gun owners” and it turns out you’re exactly like them – a self absorbed, manipulative scumbag trying to pretend it’s part of some noble cause.
Yep. When someone inevitably looks through the voting history on these kinds of comments, I won’t be shocked if they find its 4 people and 50 sock puppets.
I would be shocked if the gun lobby weren’t astroturfing though. They oppose red flag laws, take money from Russia and give tens of millions of dollars to the most revolting, far-right Republicans in the country. They’re hardly going to draw the line at lying on social media.
A decent chunk of gun owners would be willing to give up their weapons if it legitimately helped society substantially
Those are not the views of the people who represent them, nor does it routinely turn up in dicussions about gun control.
There’s also legitimate reasons to have a gun if you have a home in a high-crime area or are otherwise a target.
If guns actually delivered on this promise, America wouldn’t have “high crime areas” in the first place. It would be the safest country in the world by a huge margin.
Instead, the crime rate in the USA is functionally identical to other wealthy countries, only with a layer of gun violence on top that the rest of the world simply doesn’t have.
Americas gun laws help far more criminals than they dissuade. Even in the rare cases where a criminal can’t just buy a gun from any store that sells them, “responsible gun owners” arm hundreds of thousands of criminals every year with their poorly secured firearms.
Why would you lump those groups in with NRA lobbyists?
If they don’t like being lumped in with lobbyists, reactionaries and idiots, they can take it up with them because I’m not going to include a 5 page “not all gun owners” disclaimer at the top of every post so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. This shit is killing people for fucks sake.
It doesn’t matter if they’re blessed by the Pope himself. The people who run the instance get to decide what moves through it.
When the people using a free service you’re not obligated to provide try and shame you for not taking on multimillion dollar legal departments.
They hate when you refer to the legal gun owners who do mass shootings and execute their partners as “former responsible gun owners”.
Not enough to stop selling domestic abusers guns or anything, but boy do they get pissy.
Anything that doesn’t suck the dick of the gun lobby. Easily that. Second place isn’t even close. Even just asking “how?” when they claim their guns are the solutions will get you downvoted. They’ll ask questions and then downvote you for answering.
And of course, it’s only in threads on gun violence (when they’re doing damage control) or about marginalized groups (when they’re drumming up sales). Make the same comments under a post they haven’t thought to brigade and they won’t be even slightly unpopular.
His “defederation bad (except pedos)” isn’t exactly wet with support for blocking instances for spam and extremism.
That system exists. It’s the “run your own server” that I explicitly mentioned. But let’s be honest, he doesn’t want that system (which again, he already has) for himself, he wants it for everyone else.
It’s the same bullshit that “free speech absolutists” push in every single thread about defederation – admins should be hands off and users should dig through through slurs, racism, homophobia looking for content worth engaging with.
It benefits exactly one group of people but apparently doesn’t set off your “bad-faith” radar.